0
miked10270

Thought for the day.

Recommended Posts

Quote

Glad to see you support OBL against the US



Wrong conclusion. The point was to highlight a misuse of terminology by biased parties.

Other easy examples: US called a "democracy" while being ruled by a minority-elected leader (a republic, certainly) or the same group of people migrating from Afganistan to Chechnya to Iraq being called sequentially "Freedom Fighters" then "Terrorists" then "Freedom Fighters" then "Terrorists".

I equally dislike OBL and US actions, it's really hard to choose a lesser of two great evil.

bsbd!

Yuri.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Try reading history...That is look at WWII in the HISTORY books. That was 50+ years ago..Not today.

Wars were fought differently at different times in history.



I'd definitely agree that technology has changed, but the principles of Sun Tzu are just as applicable now as they were when written. And reading Bills posts - I gather he's referring to the principles of war, not the tools.

Jump
-------------
Scars remind us that the past is real

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Glad to see you support OBL against the US

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wrong conclusion



Really what about this:

***I equally dislike OBL and US actions, it's really hard to choose a lesser of two great evil.
Quote



Oh I see you hate us both the same.

Friends like you I don't need

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'd definitely agree that technology has changed, but the principles of Sun Tzu are just as applicable now as they were when written. And reading Bills posts - I gather he's referring to the principles of war, not the tools.



You have to take into consideration what tols you have at the time.

Tactics have to change with the advance of weapons. We don't do trench warfare anymore.

Building a castle was ended by gunpowder.

The guy with the sword beat the guy with the stick.

The days of needing to carpet bomb a city or nuke one are gone.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

There you have it folks. He thinks the USA is on the same level as Al Qaeda.



Not really. When it comes to killings of innocent civilians, USA kills an order of magnitude more. However it does kill them with good intentions. Reminds me of South Park: "We gotta kill them or else they will die!"

bsbd!

Yuri.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

50 YEARS AGO vs TODAY.



5, 50, 500 it's irrelevant, you do what you have to to win a war based on the current threat level... If it were necessary for the survival of the US we would gladly adopt the methods of 50 years ago... the direction that modern conflicts have progressed have allowed us to keep our ‘morality’ as that level of brutality has not become necessary for ‘safe’ progress in the current conflicts, lets hope that is never does, but don’t pretend we are any better now than we were then, we just aren’t under the same level of military stress…. yet....
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>The days of needing to carpet bomb a city or nuke one are gone.

They will be gone until we need to do it. Then people like you will justify the action, and will explain how it just might have saved X lives to drop a neutron bomb on Shanghai. We have always done, and will continue to do, anything it takes to win a real war. (Not an invasion of a helpless country, mind you, but a real war, one that threatens us for real.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

5, 50, 500 it's irrelevant, you do what you have to to win a war based on the current threat level... If it were necessary for the survival of the US we would gladly adopt the methods of 50 years ago... the direction that modern conflicts have progressed have allowed us to keep our ‘morality’ as that level of brutality has not become necessary for ‘safe’ progress in the current conflicts, lets hope that is never does, but don’t pretend we are any better now than we were then, we just aren’t under the same level of military stress…. yet....



I don't agree with that...I think the advances in weapons systems do TONS to make it so you don't have to carpet bomb, or nuke a city.

Other wise you are saying that there will come a time when we will have to stand in rows like the English did in the Revolutionary war.

Different attitudes and advanced weapons made things like Knights in Armor fade away.

I think the same thing happens in modern warfare.

I can't see the need to carpet bomb a city in todays conflicts.

And I can't see the need coming up...I could be wrong, but blasting Iraq with nukes is not going to speed things up over there.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>The days of needing to carpet bomb a city or nuke one are gone.

They will be gone until we need to do it. Then people like you will justify the action, and will explain how it just might have saved X lives to drop a neutron bomb on Shanghai



If its needed yes.

But it will be over the complaints of people like you that would rather us die than fight back.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no methods change. technology advances, but the strategic and tactical concepts remain the same... the rows of soldiers was always a bad idea, it just took a better tactician to figure out how to beat it.

currently our way of life is not under significant threat. It may be hard to grasp that fact with the spotlight and the wolf shadow in the closet but wait until there is a danger of dying while walking to the supermarket to pick up your ration of bread....

if/when that occurs we will gladly use whatever means necessary to insure the survival of our way of life.....even if that means the glass parking lot option...

fortunately we are no where near that level of military/social stress....
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>But it will be over the complaints of people like you that would rather
>us die than fight back.

Nope. In fact, I'm for a strong military so it can do what we intended it to do - protect the US against foreign invaders. That's its purpose, and if we're attacked, we should use it for the purpose it was created for.

And if we have to use hydrogen bombs to destroy China to make the next war end a little sooner? People like you will explain what a good idea it was, how there was no other way out. And you'll be able to pull it off, too - the people who might disagree will all be dead. This has been going on for as long as I can remember. When I was in school we learned all about how the peace-loving settlers defended themselves against the vicious native americans, who were finally pushed back into their reservations after nearly decimating the early settlers. Of course, the opposite is true, but again, the victors write history.

And that all actually works out, if your goal is to be the biggest, meanest bastard on the planet. We _can_ crush small countries now. We won't always be the biggest, baddest people out there, though - and by the time we're not, we better pray the next superpower has learned a little more restraint than we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

There you have it folks. He thinks the USA is on the same level as Al Qaeda.



Well, i think it is not the same level. As ron have stated the only diference beetwen Arab terrorists and U.S Heroes is the that terrorist aim for civilians and U.S Heroes aim for terrorist, although in the end both kill civilians... :|
So back to the level issue, Good thing for U.S Heroes is that they don´t try to kill innocent civilians, but the bad thing is that they are much better at killing inoccent people than terrorist. :|
So you tell us, what level the current U.S administration and war supporterrs are in regarding to terrorist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori."
Takes me back Bill, the works of Owen, Sassoon, Kipling etc were required reading in my English literature classes.
Their words may be dated, but the message is bang up to date.
--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

no methods change. technology advances, but the strategic and tactical concepts remain the same... the rows of soldiers was always a bad idea, it just took a better tactician to figure out how to beat it.



The rows were a bad idea, but it was the tactics of the day...Just like carpet bombing was.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Nope. In fact, I'm for a strong military so it can do what we intended it to do - protect the US against foreign invaders. That's its purpose, and if we're attacked, we should use it for the purpose it was created for.



More than just foreign invaders...but also foreign attacks, and to protect our interests all over the world.

Quote

When I was in school we learned all about how the peace-loving settlers defended themselves against the vicious native americans, who were finally pushed back into their reservations after nearly decimating the early settlers. Of course, the opposite is true, but again, the victors write history.



Its never that simple Bill as one side bad, the other good. I can find MANY cases where settlers were attacked while they were minding their own business. Just as you can find cases of indians being attacked.

Quote

And that all actually works out, if your goal is to be the biggest, meanest bastard on the planet.



I don't think thats the goal...But it has happened.

Quote

We _can_ crush small countries now.



So could the Romans.

Quote

We won't always be the biggest, baddest people out there, though - and by the time we're not, we better pray the next superpower has learned a little more restraint than we have.



They won't...It's the nature of being a superpower.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0